Energy and Green Technology

04/19/2017

On Monday the carmaker's market cap exceeded that of General Motors: $51 billion. This is about $15 billion more than where Tesla was valued for much of 2016. And it's about $7 billion more than Ford.

None of this makes any sense. Tesla's business fundamentals haven't changed substantially since late last year, and its first-quarter deliveries — 25,000 vehicles — set a sales pace for 2017 that will see Tesla produce about only 100,000 cars in 2017, an improvement of 20,000 over 2016.

Click Image To Enlarge

One explanation for Tesla's most recent surge could be that short sellers (traders who had bet against Tesla) are finally throwing in the towel and covering their positions. That, by definition, would have them buying the shares.

This does make sense, as Tesla is one of the most heavily shorted stocks on Wall Street, and those short sellers have been suffering lately. The financial-analytics firm S3 Partnersestimates that the shorts have lost $3.2 billion this year.

But given that Tesla was already heavily overvalued based on its core business — building and selling luxury electric cars — and that it has only a few billion dollars of assets to claim, it would be logical for investors to start discounting the value of Tesla's future.

Now that it's on a massive upward trajectory, its first-quarter 2017 earnings loom as an opportunity for a more rational outlook on the company's valuation to take hold and could put new investors at real risk of being flushed out.

An alarming increase

But the manner in which Tesla spikes in the absence of real news and in defiance of the numerous challenges it faces over the next year becomes more alarming as the company's paper value climbs ever higher. Tesla bulls argue that Elon Musk's enterprise will be legitimately bigger than GM's and Ford's in the future because electric transportation will displace gas-powered mobility over the next few decades and Tesla has the best brand and largest head start.

Bears insist that Tesla is a sucker's game and a capital-obliteration scheme. They point to the company's inability to make money a decade into its existence, and to Musk's steady refusal to consolidate the business, preferring to push forward and, for example, launch a mass-market electric car (the Model 3) later this year. Or create an energy-storage business. Or buy the struggling, debt-laden SolarCity for over $2 billion. If the stock indeed represents a claim on future cash flows, they point out that those future cash flows could be zero.

Both angles overlook the company's most glaring problem, which is that Tesla is a carmaker that still isn't very good at making cars. The cars that it does make are impressive (at Business Insider, we've test-driven them all). But Musk expects to be delivering 500,000 vehicles by 2018 and 1 million by 2020 — the former represents a fivefold increase over projected 2017 production, and the latter would require Tesla to either double the capacity of its Fremont factory or build a new plant.

Nonsensical valuation

Viewed in this context, Tesla trading at $311 is flatly insane. Even if it were to sell 1 million vehicles by 2020, most of them would be lower-margin small cars. The most profitable market segments — big SUVs and large pickup trucks — would still be owned by the three Detroit automakers (GM, Ford, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles) that the markets have decided are worth less in the future than Musk's operation.

The situation with Tesla's valuation will probably get worse before it gets rational.

The rally that began early this year occurred after another money-losing fourth quarter. Anyone who is a hardcore Tesla short simply needs to take solace in that Tesla's stock chart has always looked like a roller coaster; shares always go down, typically taking billions in market cap with them. (GM, Ford, and FCA charts, by contrast, look boring.)

A larger question is why Tesla has in the past three months so wildly outperformed even growth-driven stock indexes, such as the Nasdaq. Yes, the markets overall have enjoyed a rally since President Donald Trump won the election. But Tesla has enjoyed a mega-rally — one that's actually out of character with what shares generally do at the beginning of a year, as investors recalibrate their expectations and, if they've owned Tesla for a while, grab some profits.

Beyond trader dynamics — longs versus shorts — Tesla's surge isn't driven by the company's actual performance, and that's exactly what anyone calling a speculative Tesla bubble would latch on to. But that's also old news because Tesla's fundamentals have been analyzed to death, with the obvious conclusion that a $300-plus stock price demands a level of execution that the company hasn't yet reached.

At this point, a Tesla bubble looks obvious, and it looks as obvious as it has since early this year. The difference now is that it's grown so large that it's become terrifying.

COMMENTARY: According to its announcement of January 3, 2017, Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) produced 24,882 vehicles in Q4, resulting in total 2016 production of 83,922 vehicles. This was an increase of 64% from 2015.

Tesla delivered approximately 22,200 vehicles in Q4, of which 12,700 were Model S and 9,500 were Model X. When added to the rest of the year, total 2016 deliveries were approximately 76,230. Our Q4 delivery count should be viewed as slightly conservative, as we only count a car as delivered if it is transferred to the customer and all paperwork is correct.

Tesla said the transition to new Autopilot hardware resulted in the company’s vehicle production being “weighted more heavily towards the end of the quarter than we had originally planned.” In total, about 2,750 Tesla vehicles missed being counted as deliveries in the fourth quarter of 2016, which the company ascribes to “last-minute delays in transport or because the customer was unable to physically take delivery.”

Tesla said that even though those sales were counted toward 2016, the deliveries were not because the customers did not physically take possession of their cars. Tesla says about 6,450 vehicles are still in transit, and that their deliveries will be counted toward the first quarter of 2017.

The company said.

“We were ultimately able to recover and hit our production goal, but the delay in production resulted in challenges that impacted quarterly deliveries, including, among other things, cars missing shipping cutoffs for Europe and Asia. Although we tried to recover these deliveries and expedite others by the end of the quarter, time ran out before we could deliver all customer cars.”

While it fell short on delivery, Tesla was able to beat its production rate for 2015. Tesla said it produced 24,882 vehicles in the fourth quarter of 2016, resulting in a total of 83,922 vehicles produced in 2016. This was an increase of 64 percent from 2015.

Vehicle demand in Q4 was particularly strong, Tesla says. Net orders for Model S and X, which were an all-time record, were 52 percent higher than Q4 2015 and 24 percent higher than the company’s previous record quarter in Q3 2016.

Early last month, Tesla announced that it will begin charging owners who leave their cars at Supercharger stations after they have completed charging. The new fee is an attempt to increase turnover at the charging stations, which have become increasingly congested as more Teslas are sold.

Tesla Lithium-ion Battery Gigafactory

Deep in the Nevada hinterlands, under the scorching desert sun, Elon Musk is quietly building a $5 billion, 5.8 million square-foot battery plant that will forever change the auto industry.

Now, most of the attention Tesla receives has to do with its cars. And perhaps justifiably so. Just last week, Motor Trend announced that Tesla's Model S P100D can go from 0-60 MPH in a record-breaking 2.2755 seconds. (That level of torque puts Tesla on par with Ferrari, by the way.)

But the major focus should not be the actual vehicles Tesla is producing. Rather, it's about something much bigger, and, in my view, infinitely more important for Tesla's long-term success: The Gigafactory.

In partnership with Panasonic, Tesla's Gigafactory is building lithium-ion batteries - the same type of battery that's been popular for use with personal electronics but deemed too expensive for electric cars. The Gigafactory is changing that.

As of January 2017, Tesla has begun mass production of the cells, and by 2018, the Gigafactory will "reach full capacity and produce more lithium ion batteries annually than were produced worldwide in 2013," the company says. The facility will be staffed by 6,500 full-time Reno-based employees and "single-handedly double the world's production capacity for lithium-ion batteries," according to Bloomberg.

The company also plans to be producing one million electric cars by the end of the decade.

Now, let's take a step back. Why is the Gigafactory such a big deal, you ask?

Well, two main reasons: Cost and storage.

Batteries for electric vehicles are historically not very cheap, nor do they hold a very good charge. But Musk wants to change that. Specifically, he wants to drive down the per kilowatt hour (kWh) price of the battery pack by more than 30 percent to make it suitable for electric cars, while increasing the amount of energy storage in the battery pack. Must sai at a January 2017 event.

"It really comes from the first principles of physics and economics. That's the way we try to analyze everything."

As stated in a January 2017 investor presentation, Musk announced that the drivetrain for Tesla's much-anticipated $35,000 Model 3 will be built at the Gigafactory 1 in order to vertically integrate the battery production with car production. In a subsequent Q&A session, Musk "compared the concept of the Gigafactory's vertical integration to Ford's effort 100 years ago at River Rouge Complex, the largest integrated factory in the world at the time," Electrek noted.

The big question for investors, however, is whether or not the Gigafactory will pay off in the long-term.

My belief is that yes, it will.

Let me explain.

The Gigafactory Will Push Tesla's Cars Costs Down And Increase Demand For EVs

There's a whole host of reasons why electric cars are the future (fewer greenhouse gases, unstable oil price, a smaller amount of serviceable components, etc.) but the purpose of this article isn't to prove why electric cars are the future. That's just the reality.

By 2040, about 23 years from now, analysts at Bloomberg predict that electric cars will account for 35 percent of all new vehicle sales. Some have even rosier predictions for the EV market: The Argonne National Laboratory predicts that electric cars will make up 58% of the light vehicle market by 2030.

Click Image To Enlarge

Right now, what's holding back the sale of EV cars is battery cost and quality.

By owning the production of low-cost batteries with the Gigafactory, the thinking goes, Tesla will establish itself as the king electric vehicle automaker in the long run.

It should be noted, too, that Tesla already has an enormous position on the incumbents in the market, meaning that when the factory is fully up-and-running, they will be best-positioned to target consumers interested in electric vehicles.

Best-selling all-electric cars in 2016

Click Image To Enlarge

Tesla is forgoing short-term profits to invest $5 billion into a battery factory (a decision some in the market have criticized) the long-term rewards are well-worth it.

"The cost of batteries is so critical in all this that it justifies (Tesla) having this control. No one else is going to push as hard as they want to bring down the cost of batteries, and to push the market as fast as they need it to go."

Click Image To Enlarge

The Gigafactory is Opening To Europe - Taking Tesla With It

In November 2016, Tesla announced that they'll be building Gigafactory 2 in Europe.

Since then, plenty of country officials have thrown their hat in the ring, practically begging Musk to choose them. The Dutch Minister of Finance, for instance, officially expressed his country's interest, while Cyprus began a social media campaign to attract Musk. Portugal, however, is perhaps the most gung-ho about the Gigafactory. As DW reported:

"Euphoria has nevertheless gripped many Portuguese over a possible Tesla investment. There's even a Facebook group called 'Bring Tesla Gigafactory to Portugal.' It has only been online since mid-November, but just one month later, it already has nearly 70,000 members. Whether that will help sway Elon Musk as he considers his options for siting Europe's first Gigafactory remains to be seen. It's expected that he will make the siting decision sometime in 2017."

Tesla Stock Bubble

I haven't tracked Tesla shares since late last year, so was very surprised to discover that the shares had increased +104.99 or +53.43% since mid-October 2016. However, the bad news is that Tesla's share price has risen because short sellers have had to buy shares t o minimize their losses. This is a type of "forced demand" that has, for lack of a better word, "artificially drivenup" the price of Tesla Shares, and the increase has been so significant, that retail buyers and speculators have come in and drivenup the price even more. The result is a price per share that is not inline with its financial performance. Tesla's CAP is now higher than General Motors, which is ridiculous since they are both in the same market category. If you are going to invest in Tesla, you must realize that Elon Musk is a high risk taker, who gambles big. Tesla is bigger than fancy electric cars with the latest technology, but about a far bigger mission -- insuring the health of our planet and reducing greenhouse gases. It is a race against time, and this requires rolling the dice. Musk has done this with Space-X, Solar City and Tesla. Forget shortterm profits and look at the bigger picture If investors believe in the bigger picture and true mission for Tesla, then maybe, just maybe, the current valuation is justified on the basis of future potential and not current unit sales of electric cars. If they can grasp the true vision that Elon Musk has for Tesla, then things will sort themselves out. Sure, there may be stock price adjustments, every public company has them, but I truly believe in Tesla's future potential.

07/31/2016

It's 2:00 am in the dark morning hours of June 28th, Mark Zuckerberg woke up and got on a plane. He was traveling to an aviation testing facility in Yuma, AZ, where a small Facebook team had been working on a secret project. Their mission: to design, build, and launch a high-altitude solar-powered plane, in the hopes that one day a fleet of the aircraft would deliver internet access around the world.

Zuckerberg arrived at the Yuma Proving Ground before dawn. Zuckerberg said in an interview with The Verge.

“A lot of the team was really nervous about me coming.”

A core group of roughly two dozen people work on the drone, named Aquila (uh-KEY-luh), in locations from Southern California to the United Kingdom. For months, they had been working in rotations in Yuma, a small desert city in southwestern Arizona known primarily for its brutal summer temperatures.

On this day, Aquila would have its first functional test flight: the goal consisted of taking off safely, stabilizing in the air, and flying for at least 30 minutes before landing. Zuckerberg says.

“I just felt this is such an important milestone for the company, and for connecting the world, that I have to be there.”

For Facebook, Aquila is more than a proof of concept. It’s a linchpin of the company’s plan to bring the internet to all 7 billion people on Earth, regardless of their income or where they live. Doing so will lift millions of people out of poverty, Zuckerberg says, improving education and health globally along the way. But it will also enable the next generation of Facebook’s services in artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and more. This next era of tech will require higher bandwidth and more reliable connections than we have today, and drones can help deliver both. The road to a VR version of Facebook begins where Aquila leaves the runway.

Click Image To Enlarge

As the Sun rose over the desert, a crane lifted Aquila onto the dolly structure that would propel it into the sky. The drone has a tremendous wingspan: 141 feet, compared to a Boeing 737’s 113 feet. And yet Facebook engineered Aquila to be as light as possible to permit ultra-long flights. Built with carbon fiber, the latest iteration of the drone weighs around 900 pounds — about half as much as a Smart car.

A remote control operator activated the dolly, and Aquila began rumbling down the runway. The plane is attached to the dolly with four straps. When it reached sufficient speed, pyrotechnic cable cutters known as “squibs” cut through the straps, and Aquila lifted into the air, where it floated up its test altitude of 2,150 feet and stabilized. On the ground, Facebook’s employees were elated; some wiped away tears. Zuckerberg said.

“It was this incredibly emotional moment for everyone on the team who’s poured their lives into this for two years.”

Watching from below, Zuckerberg was struck by Aquila’s deliberate, unhurried pace. Zuckerberg said two weeks later, at Facebook’s headquarters in Menlo Park, CA.

“It flies really slowly. Most times when people are designing planes, they’re designing them to get people or things from place to place, so there’s no real advantage to moving slowly. But if your goal is to stay in the air for a long period of time, then you want to use as little energy as possible — which means going as slowly as you physically can, while not falling out of the air.”

Click Image To Enlarge

FLIGHT MANUAL

Okay, but why a plane? There are lots of ways to bring the internet to people that don’t involve designing your own drone.

There are satellites, which are good at delivering internet access to wide geographical areas. But they’re only effective in areas with low population density — too many users can gobble up the bandwidth in a hurry.

There are cellular towers, which excel at connecting dense urban populations. But building enough cellular towers to cover the entire Earth is considered too expensive and impractical, even for Facebook.

In 2014, Zuckerberg wrote a paper analyzing various methods of internet delivery. High-altitude drones, he said, could serve a huge audience of people who live in medium-sized cities or on the outskirts of urban areas. They fly closer to the ground than satellites, meaning their signals are stronger and more useful to larger populations. And they fly above regulated airspace, making them easier to deploy.

If Facebook could build a drone that gathered most of its power from the Sun, Zuckerberg reasoned, it could fly for 90 days. A laser communications system could deliver high-speed internet to base stations on the ground, connecting everyone within 50 kilometers. The planes would be easier to maneuver than, say, balloons — a method embraced by Google, which has embarked on its own global connectivity crusade with Project Loon. (Last year Google challenged Facebook more directly with Project Titan, a solar-powered internet delivery drone of its own.) If the drones could be built cheaply enough, they would one day dot the skies, and become a critical piece of the global internet infrastructure.

And so 26 months ago, Zuckerberg set an ambitious goal: to release a functional version of Aquila in just a couple years. He personally recruited experts from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and MIT’s Media Lab, among other places, to bring his vision to life.

As part of the project, Facebook spent nearly $20 million to acquire the team behind Ascenta, an aviation consultancy led by Andy Cox. Cox is a mechanical engineer who previously worked on a team that kept a solar-powered drone in the sky for two weeks — still a world record. After Facebook acquired his consultancy, Cox became Zuckerberg’s top lieutenant on the Aquila project. The team works out of a warehouse in Bridgewater, 150 miles west of London.

As recounted in Wired earlier this year, building a working model of Aquila put the team in daily battle with the laws of physics. Early on, it attempted to launch Aquila with a hot-air balloon. A planned test flight date of October 2015 was pushed back, and then pushed back again. Attempts to fly a 27-foot scale model of Aquila were hampered by El Niño storms.

But by June 28th of this year, the team had overcome those hurdles. At cruise altitude, Aquila was using just 2,000 watts of energy — the equivalent output of five strong cyclists, Zuckerberg says. The company hoped Aquila would successfully remain aloft for half an hour. But it was so stable that they kept it in the air for 90 minutes before landing it safely.

Click Image To Enlarge

THE HARD PART

In it's first flight, Aquila exceeded engineers’ expectations for its energy efficiency. More test flights are planned, aimed at flying Aquila “faster, higher, and longer,” says Jay Parikh, Facebook’s vice president of engineering, in a blog post today. And then Aquila will have its next big test: flying with the “payload,” as Facebook calls the laser communication system that a team is building in Woodland Hills, CA. In July 2015, the team announced that its lasers could deliver data at tens of gigabits per second, about 10 times faster than the previous standard. And the lasers are quite precise, able to target an area the size of a dime from 10 miles away. (The lasers connect with base stations on the ground to supply internet access.) Facebook says the system has performed well in independent tests.

When will a fleet of Aquila drones bring data to the world? Facebook won’t say. There are several technical challenges remaining in getting Aquila to reliably fly 90-day stretches. The team hasn’t yet implemented solar panels on the prototype — the test flight plane ran using batteries only. The team is still working out how to build batteries with a density high enough to sustain lengthy missions. Then there’s the cost — Facebook says Aquila needs to be much cheaper if the world is going to deploy a fleet of them. Cox wrote in a blog posttoday.

“We need to develop more efficient on-board power and communication systems; ensure the aircraft are resilient to structural damage to reduce maintenance costs and able to stay aloft for long periods of time to keep fleet numbers low; and minimize the amount of human supervision associated with their operation.”

Aquila is also likely to face regulatory obstacles, which could rival the laws of physics in terms of the challenges they present. Facebook and Google have teamed up to work with authorities, such as the Federal Aviation Administration, to get permission for test flights and obtain access to the spectrum they need to serve data.

Facebook says it doesn’t plan to use Aquila to build its own cellular network. Instead, Zuckerberg says, it wants to license the technology — or even give it away to telecommunications companies, governments, and nonprofits. In emergency situations, he says, Facebook could direct its fleet to troubled regions to bolster internet access for hospitals and nonprofit centers.

But it remains unclear how governments will receive Facebook’s latest idea for connecting the world. The company’s efforts at diplomacy have sometimes been clumsy; Indian regulators banned Free Basics, Facebook’s effort to provide some internet services for free, on the grounds that giving the company control over the included services violates net neutrality. Bringing more people onto the internet, after all, is a way of bringing more people onto Facebook — and regulators have worried that the company’s end goal is to simply replace the open web for most users, while reaping the rewards in advertising dollars.

Zuckerberg says the company has learned from its failure in India — one he hopes is temporary. Solar-powered planes will raise additional regulatory issues, he says.

“We’ve learned a lot about how we need to interact with governments and the political system and regulators, and build support in order to have these things work. And I think we’ll take those lessons forward. But when I meet world leaders, a lot folks are really excited about this, because you want your people to be online, and you want more opportunities. And connectivity is one of the biggest ways that people get access to opportunities.”

Click Image To Enlarge

The path forward for Aquila isn’t totally clear, and it’s bound to encounter more bumps along the way. But Zuckerberg is resolute: billions of people who can’t access the internet deserve it. And for Facebook to achieve his long-term vision, everyone is going to need access to more bandwidth than they have today. A single test flight represents a tiny step toward getting there. But it also gives Facebook a dramatic success to rally around.

Zuckerberg says.

“I think the future is going to be thousands of solar-powered planes on the outskirts of cities and places where people live, and that’s gonna make connectivity both available and cheaper. And, I think, can help play an important role in closing this gap of getting more than a billion people online. This is an early milestone, but it’s a big one.”

Zuckerberg smiled and said.

“It’s not something you necessarily expect Facebook to do — because we’re not an aerospace company. But I guess we’re becoming one.”

COMMENTARY: Zuck's strategy to fly internet drones over poverty stricken geographical areas, like those in Africa, where the internet penetration is only 9.8%, or the cost of WIFI connectivity is prohibitably high, is really a ploy to get more Facebook users. At its core, it sounds like a noble and philanthropic mission of helping those in need, but it is solely about getting more eyeballs to connect through Facebook and sell them things through online ads. If Zuck really wanted to help needy African's he should take some of those billions he has and give it to charitable organizations which are fighting to eradicate hunger, AIDS, Ebola, malaria and other diseases.

10/26/2015

The outside of the Wendelstein 7-x stellarator with its conglomeration of equipment, ports, and supporting structure (Click Image To Enlarge)

In a large complex located at Greifswald in the north-east corner of Germany, sits a new and unusual nuclear fusion reactor awaiting a few final tests before being powered-up for the very first time. Dubbed the Wendelstein 7-x fusion stellarator, it has been more than 15 years in the making and is claimed to be so magnetically efficient that it will be able to continuously contain super-hot plasma in its enormous magnetic field for more than 30 minutes at a time. If successful, this new reactor may help realize the long-held goal of continuous operation essential for the success of nuclear fusion power generation.

Created by the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (IPP) and designed with the aid of a supercomputer, the Wendelstein 7-x is the first large-scale optimized stellarator of its type ever to be commissioned. With a name like something out of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and a containment vessel that literally provides a new twist on the doughnut shape we see in standard tokamak fusion reactors, the quirky stellarator design aims to provide an inherently more stable environment for plasma and a more promising route for nuclear fusion research in general.

Initially an American design conceived by Lyman Spitzer working at Princeton University in 1951, the stellarator was deemed too complex for the constraints of materials available in the middle of the 20th Century, and the more easily constructed toroid of the tokamak won out as the standard model for fusion research.

Though some stellarators have been constructed over the course of time – notably the predecessor to this latest iteration known as the Wendelstein 7-AS (Advanced Stellarator) – the calculations required to ensure ultimate plasma containment and control have only become possible with the advent of supercomputers.

As such, algorithms specifically created to fuse theory and practice have now been applied to the design of the Wendelstein 7-x, and its designers firmly believe that this latest version will have the stability required to be the precursor machine to full-blown, continuous nuclear fusion power generation.

For the eventual success of nuclear fusion power (essentially where two isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium, are subject to such energy that the strong nuclear force is overcome and they fuse to form helium and release copious amounts of neutron energy), stability is essential. This is because the enormous pressures and temperatures (around 100 million degrees Celsius (180 million °F)) used to create the plasma, and then accelerate the resulting ion and electron soup around the containment vessel, means that any instability in the magnetic containment field or the pressure vessel itself will result in degradation and ultimately the failure of the process.

What is the concept underlying the Wendelstein 7-X fusion device? This video, produced from various CADs, illustrates how the device is configured and what objectives are being pursued by the fusion research conducted at the Greifswald branch of Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics with Wendelstein 7-X.

To achieve a more stable environment, the stellarator eschews the method of inducing current through the plasma to drive electrons and ions around the inside of the vessel as found in tokamak designs, instead relying entirely on external magnetic fields to move the particles along. In this way, stellarator designs are basically immune to the sudden and unexpected disruptions of plasma and the enormous – and often destructive – magnetic field collapses that sometimes occur in tokamaks.

As such, a stellarator reactor is able to hold the plasma in a containment field that twists through a set of magnetic coils to continuously hold the plasma away from the walls of the device. This is because, in a normal tokamak, with its doughnut-shaped containment vessel and electromagnet windings that loop through the center of the toroid and around the outside, the magnetic field is stronger in the center than it is on the outer side. This means that plasma contained in a tokamak tends to drift to the outer walls where it then collapses.

A graphic depicting the plasma flow (red) in the stellarator and its magnetic coils (blue) (Click Image To Enlarge)

The stellarator, on the other hand, avoids this situation by twisting the entire containment vessel into a shape that constantly forces the plasma stream into the center of the reactor vessel as it continuously encounters magnetic fields in opposing positions along its entire length.

The advantages of the stellarator over the tokamak come at a cost, however, as the many twists and turns that give the stellarator an advantage in magnetic containment also means that many particles can simply be lost as they veer off course following the path of the containment vessel itself. To help avoid this, a great many more magnetic coils are required for the stellarator and must be set up at very close intervals around the structure and super-cooled with liquid helium for maximum efficiency.

Construction of the Wendelstein 7-x stellerator took over 1 million man-hours (Click Image To Enlarge)

In the case of the Wendelstein 7-x, the weight of the 50, 3.5-meter (11.5-ft) tall non-planar super-conducting electromagnets alone is around 425 tonnes (468 tons) and their placement makes construction difficult and their assembly fraught with problems. Not to mention the fact that piping around vast quantities of liquid helium to ensure that the electromagnets superconduct at temperatures close to absolute zero makes the Wendelstein 7-x a plumber's nightmare, and a tricky addition to an already difficult balancing act.

As such, the physical design of the stellarator itself requires access ports for fuel ingress and egress, along with a myriad other entry points for instruments, sensors, and all the other necessary paraphernalia necessary to monitor the enormous pressures, voltages, and temperatures that it will be subject to in operation.

Dr. Matthias Otte, who is responsible for the measurement process, reports:

“Once the flux surface diagnostics were placed in operation, we were immediately able to see the first magnetic surfaces. Our images clearly show how magnetic field lines create closed surfaces in many toroidal circulations”.

The flux surface diagnostics enables the structure of the field to be precisely measured. For this purpose, a thin electron beam is injected and moves along a field line in circular tracks through the evacuated plasma vessel. It leaves behind a tracer, which is created by collision of the electrons with residual gas in the vessel. If, in addition, a fluorescent rod is moved through the vessel cross section, light spots are created when the electron beam hits the rod. In the camera recording, the entire cross section of the magnetic field gradually becomes visible.

Despite all of these problems, tests on the completed stellarator to maintain the sub-millimeter accuracy for the plasma path are progressing and show promise. In one recent test, an electron beam was injected into the stellarator and progressed along a predetermined field line in the circular tracks through the evacuated plasma vessel. As it moved through the machine, the beam created a tracer in its wake created by collisions with electrons contained in the residual gas in the vessel.

Photograph that combines the tracer of an electron beam on its multiple circulation along the inside of the containment vessel (Click Image To Enlarge)

Meanwhile, as the electron beam constantly circulated through the system, a fluorescent rod was pushed transversely through the vessel in cross section, and when the electron beam struck the rod, visible spots of light were created and the results recorded with a camera. In this way, the whole cross section of the magnetic field was gradually made visible.

"Once the flux surface diagnostics were placed in operation, we were immediately able to see the first magnetic surfaces. Our images clearly show how magnetic field lines create closed surfaces in many toroidal circulations."

Coil tests are conducted in the control room, the measured data from all test series are brought together and evaluated (Click Image To Enlarge)

Whilst in itself just another stepping stone toward the ultimate goal of practical fusion energy, the IPP stellarator is an important juncture in the field. With tokamak-based reactors still requiring more energy in than they actually produce, both the scientific and general public alike have grown wary of the long-held promises surrounding nuclear fusion. And, though many bodies, such as the University of Washington, Lockheed-Martin, and MIT, claim to be "close" to producing a working, sustainable, self-powering machine, nuclear fusion still remains a pipe dream.

This is where IPP's proving of the technology over the coming months leading to a full-blown commissioning of the machine may well provide the nexus between theory and practicality and, if not deliver on the promise of boundless energy, at least provide a proof of concept and renew flagging interest in a field that may, one day, solve all of our energy needs.

With approval to continue from nuclear regulators in Germany expected by the end of this month, the Wendelstein 7-x stellarator is slated for its first fully-operational tests in November this year. At a cost of more than €1 billion ($US 1.1 billion) and over 1 million man-hours of work committed so far, the hopes of Europe's future being a nuclear fusion-powered one may well rest on the ability of this machine to perform as expected. Watch this space.

COMMENTARY: The objective of fusion research like that being conducted by the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (IPP)is to develop a power source that is friendly to the climate and the environment. Similarly to the sun, it harvests energy from the fusion of atomic nuclei. To light the fusion fire in a future power station, the fuel – a hydrogen plasma – must be confined in magnetic fields and heated to a temperature of over 100 million degrees. The Wendelstein 7-X, which will be the largest stellarator-type fusion device in the world, will not produce energy but will enable the suitability of this type of device as a power station to be investigated. With plasma discharges lasting up to 30 minutes, it should demonstrate its significant property – its ability to operate continuously.

A ring of 50 superconducting magnetic coils approximately 3.5 metres in height, is the key component of the device. Cooled with liquid helium to the superconducting temperature which is near to absolute zero, once switched on, they consume very little energy. Their special shapes are the result of refined optimisation calculations. Their task is to create a magnetic cage for the plasma with particularly good thermal-insulation properties.

In May 2014 the assembly of Wendelstein 7-X was completed on time and for over a year the preparations for operation have been under way. One by one, the operation of each technical system is being tested. From the end of April to the beginning of July 2015, attention was turned to the magnetic coils. As soon as the functional capability of these central system components was confirmed (see IPP Info 6/15), the testing of the magnetic surfaces was carried out. Configuration of the computer-supported data collection for the experimental operation is still to be carried out and in the periphery of the device the equipment for monitoring and heating the plasma requires completion. The objective: the Wendelstein 7-X should produce the first plasma this year.

Let's wish the physicists at IPP much success in taking the first step in the development of sustainable, self-powering, clean and efficient fusion energy. This sort of science was thought to be impossible due to the ultra-high temperatures required to create fusion energy. The radical Wendelstein 7-X stellarator, with its wacky, twisty, donut-shaped containment vessel, appears to be viable in containing the super-hot plasma, according to early tests. We hope that fusion energy theory becomes reality, and during the first real test in November, and that there are no dangerous accidents. Would hate to see $1.1 billion go up in smitherings.

10/18/2015

The University of Michigan's Aurum solar car features an asymmetrical catamaran body (Click Image To Enlarge)

If you're looking to bring together the world's brightest budding engineers to push solar technology to its very limits, then there may be no better backdrop than the dusty, sun-drenched expanses of central Australia. The biennial World Solar Challenge will kick off this Sunday, with competitors set to cover a monster 3,000 km (1,864 mi) journey from Darwin, Northern Territory to Adelaide, South Australia in cars powered purely by the sun. As hopefuls from all over the globe ready their rides for the ultimate in solar-powered endurance racing, here's a quick look at some of the interesting vehicle designs, who's new to the party and a few that have been around the block before.

This year's event marks the 13th World Solar Challenge and features 47 teams from 25 different countries, which is more than ever before. The vehicles taking part have traditionally resembled spaceships more than cars you might see on the street, but at the last World Solar Challenge in 2013 organizers introduced the Cruiser Challenge, a second class catering to solar cars that can carry passengers and are designed more with practicality in mind.

The Challenger Class is the mainstay of the competition and sees a fleet of sleek, aerodynamic cars covered in solar panels battle it out to be the first across the finish line. This year's event features 29 teams who have had to tailor their designs to result in vehicles no longer than 4.5 m (14.7 ft) and no wider than 1.8 m (5.9 ft), which is a downsizing from the previous event. The field includes a number of teams who have been regular place-getters, if not winners, of the World Solar Challenge, along with a few making their debut appearances.

Nuon Solar Team: Nuna

The Nuon Solar Team is the reigning champ and has been one of the first three across the finish line in every World Solar Challenge since 2001, claiming the first prize a total of five times. Hailing from Holland, this year the team rides in the Nuna8, the eighth rendition of its Nuna solar car and, perhaps in a warning to its competitors, claims to have learnt some design lessons from its successful run in 2013.

The Nuon Solar Team is the reigning champ and has been one of the first three across the finish line in every World Solar Challenge since 2001 (Click Image To Enlarge)

Tokai University: Tokai Challenger

Japan's Tokai University has taken the fight right up to the Nuon Solar Team in recent years, winning both the 2009 and 2011 events, then coming in second place in 2013. It says the new and improved Tokai Challenger is lighter, features improved power generation and also better aerodynamics.

Tokai University is back and looking for another title at the World Solar Challenge with its Tokai Challenger solar car (Click Image To Enlarge)

University of Michigan: Aurum

The University of Michigan has been in the game since 1990, when it placed third in the second ever World Solar Challenge, and it takes solar car design seriously. Consecutive third place finishes in 2009 and 2011 were followed by a crash in 2013, which crippled the team's chances of success despite the team's best efforts to repair the vehicle. Aurum is its 2015 ride, featuring an asymmetrical catamaran body that is said to be more aerodynamic that any vehicle the team has ever produced.

The University of Michigan team says its focus in building Aurum was speed, reliability, and safety (Click Image To Enlarge)

Stanford University: Arctan

A product of Stanford University's Solar Car Project program, Arctan is claimed to feature some of the most advanced photovoltaic and encapsulation technologies. Will it be enough to yield Stanford's first ever triumph at the World Solar Challenge?

Stanford University's Arctan solar car during a test run (Click Image To Enlarge)

Eindhoven University of Technology: Stella Lux

The (comparatively) spacious Stella Lux is a second take on solar car design from the team at Eindhoven University of Technology. Running in the Cruiser Challenge, the vehicle seats up to four people, features a range of more than 1,100 km (684 mi) and has a top speed of 125 km/h (78 mph). It has a tunnel running through its center to maximize aerodynamics.

Stella Lux will take part in the Cruiser Class of the Bridgestone World Solar Challenge (Click Image To Enlarge)

New entries

Three new teams are looking to make their mark on the World Solar Challenge this year. Thailand's Siam Technology College claims it has designed its STC-1 solar vehicle to the same standards as a typical racing car, while the GAMF Hungary team says its goal with its Megalux car was to build a vehicle where all the components are in harmony with one another. Meanwhile, South Africa's University of KwaZulu-Natal will debut a solar car called Hulamin, which features an asymmetrical design with a small frontal area to reduce drag

Thailand's Siam Technology College is entering the World Solar Challenge for the first time with its STC-1 solar car (Click Image To Enlarge)

While these vehicles are the result of years of research, refinement and careful consideration, there's no way to completely prepare for the harsh Australian outback where daytime temperatures are expected to reach 100° F (37.8° Celsius) in the coming days. There's certain to be a few twists and turns down the road, so stay tuned to Gizmag to see which team comes out on top. The awards ceremony is due to start in Adelaide on Wednesday as the teams start rolling in, but in the meantime you can click through to our gallery to see these vehicles from all angles.

The GAMF Hungary team says its goal with its Megalux car was to build a vehicle where all the components are in harmony with one another (Click Image To Enlarge)

COMMENTARY: I've been covering green technology and solar energy for quite some time now. I especially enjoy these long distance, solar-powered car races. The World Solar Challenge is without any doubt the most grueling, covering a distance of 1,864 across Australia north-to-south.

The Nuon Solar Team from the Netherlands cross the finish line in southern Australia to win the 2013 Bridgestone World Solar Challenge, in which vehicles use only solar power. The car race from Darwin to Adelaide is 1,877 miles long and attracts teams from around the world. Nuon finished in a time of 33.05 hours and jumped into inflatable paddling pools to celebrate their win.

10/01/2015

THE WORLD’S FIRST luxury electric SUV is gorgeous. It’s futuristic. And once again, Tesla Motors is redefining the electric vehicle.

The Silicon Valley automaker has teased us for years with the Model X, and tonight it finally gave the world its first look at the production model, then handed six customers the keys.

Click Image To Enlarge

Those people now own a $130,000 electric vehicle that will go 250 miles on a charge, carry seven people and haul more stuff than anyone but a hoarder might want with him. And although the X shares much of its DNA with the impressive Model S P90D sedan, in many ways it eclipses that phenomenal car. It’s not just the design, which is futuristic without being weird. It’s not just the performance, which isholy shit fast. And it’s not even the dramatic “falcon” doors that lift like the wings of a bird.

Click Image To Enlarge

It’s how all of those features come together in a vehicle that somehow makes an SUV not just cool, but desirable.

But then, that’s what Tesla does.

Click Image To Enlarge

CEO Elon Musk said at the car’s reveal, held at the company’s factory in Fremont, California.

“The mission of Tesla is to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. It’s important to know that any kind of car can go electric.”

Reaching this point has been a longer journey than Elon Musk hoped. This is the car that’s supposed to prove his company is more than a one hit wonder, and an interlude before the long-awaited Model III brings a $35,000 EV to the masses in 2017.

Musk unveiled a prototype X in 2012, saying production would begin the following year. He later pushed that to 2014, which came and went with a promise that we’d see the X this year. But then that’s Musk—he often makes big promises with short timelines, which might explain why he told us tonight that if he had it to do over again, he’d have made the X less complicated and therefore easier to engineer and build.

Finally the car is here, and first impressions suggest it was worth the wait. If you order one today, though, you’ll have to wait a while longer: Tesla estimates it’ll take 8 to 12 months to deliver cars ordered now.

Complexities

The X is, in a word, stunning. Its most amazing features are its mind-bending acceleration, gorgeous design, and amazing rear passenger doors. Tesla calls them “falcon” doors, because they lift like the wings of a bird. And because it sounds cool.

Click Image To Enlarge

Click Image To Enlarge

The big drawback of doors that open like wings—the Mercedes-Benz AMG SLS has them, as did the DeLorean—is they require a lot of room to open, so you’re always worried about hitting something. Tesla got around this by double-hinging the doors, and fitting each with an ultrasonic sensor and putting a third on the roof. They scan the area around the vehicle to determine how much space there is, then adjust the “span” and open accordingly.

Click Image To Enlarge

It sounds complicated as hell, and it is, but it works beautifully. Tesla engineers say the doors can open with as little as 12 inches on each side of the vehicle—then proved it by having us park between two cars. The mirrors on the X were mere inches from those of the car on either side, yet the doors opened flawlessly. Capacitive sensors in the edges of each door sense obstacles within 2 to 4 inches, so you don’t have to worry about a descending door whacking your head or crushing your fingers.

All of this may sound like a frivolous extravagance, and in some ways it is—and you know part of the reason Musk wanted these doors was to prove he could make them—but it’s remarkably clever, even practical.

Yes, practical. The doors make it easy to get in and out of the vehicle. No gymnastic contortions to get into the (standard) third row seating. No more cantilevering yourself to get your kids into their child seats. No more playing Tetris trying to get your stuff in. Just throw open those doors—actually, push a button and let the doors lift automatically, in 6 to 7 seconds—throw in your groceries and bags and whatnot, and climb in after it.

Click Image To Enlarge

Click Image To Enlarge

Speaking of stuff, the X is cavernous. No one could tell us the internal volume—you’d think someone at Tesla would have had that figure—but one engineer said you could carry a sheet of plywood. Another said the X would easily swallow a surfboard. And yet another said you could carry a load of two-by-fours. Suffice it to say, this thing will swallow as much cargo as any normal person would carry. Tesla offers an accessory hitch that holds four bikes or six pairs of skis, and can be attached to the back of the car in just a few seconds.

Should you somehow manage to run out of room, the Model X has Class 3 towing capacity, which in lay terms means it’ll haul 5,000 pounds.

In other words, unless you regularly haul enough cattle to supply all the leather in this thing, space is not a problem.

Cavernous

Another clever trick is the “monopost” design of the second-row seats, which is fancy way of saying that each seat (two if you get the six-passenger model, three if you get the seven), sits on its own chrome-plated post. That makes each seat almost infinitely adjustable fore and aft and provides ample room for everyone’s feet. The designers drew inspiration from high-end office chairs and admit they were, like the doors, a bitch to engineer.

Along with the doors and the seats, Musk is especially proud of the “panoramic” windshield, which extends back over the front seat seats to provide an exceptional view. Tesla claims it is the largest windshield ever installed in a production vehicle—yet, oddly, no one had actually measured the damn thing and so couldn’t say exactly how big it is.

Click Image To Enlarge

Whatever the number, we can tell you that if you look at the X head-on, it appears to have a glass roof, and riding up front almost like being in a convertible.

Equally impressive is the sound system which is, in a word, glorious. But then, with 560 watts and 17 speakers, how could it not be? Tesla designed the system in-house specifically for the X because it wanted to ensure the system delivered the best sound with the smallest power requirements—essential in an electric vehicle. (General Motors took a similar tack with the Chevrolet Volt, tapping Bose to design a system specifically for the car.) The sound is crisp, clear, and loud—even when standing 15 feet away from the car.

Click Image To Enlarge

The styling is perhaps best described as a Model S on steroids. It’s a taller, obviously, and, at 5,441 pounds, about 740 pounds heavier than the S. That said, it also looks more than a little like the BMW X6 from the rear three-quarter view—but when it glides by you silently on the freeway, you’ll know it’s a Tesla.

Click Image To Enlarge

Inside, the X is futuristic without being funky, with acres of white leather, plenty of cubbies and cupholders, and that enormous 17-inch touchscreen in the middle of the dash.

Click Image To Enlarge

Competition

Although the X is the first electric luxury SUV, it won’t be alone for long. Bentley promises a plug-in hybrid version of its new, ultra-luxe Bentayga SUV in about a year. Rolls-Royce and Lamborghini have hinted at similar plans. Last month, Audi showed off an all-electric crossover conceptthat’s probably a preview of the 2019 Q6. Aston Martin wants to have one ready in two years.

No one at Tesla would say just what performance, handling, and comfort benchmarks they aimed at with the X, but they’re well aware of everyone’s plans and not terribly worried. And the fact they had a Porsche Cayenne and a BMW X5 in the parking lot for comparison suggests they’re quite confident of the Model X’s sporting capabilities.

They have every reason to be.

Let’s start with the acceleration. It’s crazy. Every Model X comes with a 90 kilowatt-hour battery and dual motors, a model known as 90D. Drop another 10 grand and you get the P90D, which is the performance model with its “ludicrous mode.” Yes, Tesla actually calls it that, and it’s fitting. If you decide to stomp on the accelerator, make damn sure you’ve got plenty of open road ahead of you, because things happenvery quickly. Sixty mph comes in 3.2 seconds, which is on par with the some of the best sports cars from anyone in Italy, Germany, or Britain. We tried it. That number’s legit.

We didn’t have the room to do a quarter-mile run, but Tesla says the Model X P90D will do it in 11.7 seconds. That put its alongside cars like the BMW M5, Corvette Z06, and Porsche Panamera Turbo. Top speed is limited to 155 mph.

If you find ludicrous mode just a bit too, well, ludicrous, or you don’t want to spend that extra dough, the base model adds about half a second to the acceleration and quarter-mile times. Which is to say, it’s still bloody fast. The Model X 90D starts for $132,000 and goes 257 miles on a charge, the more acceleration-friendly P90D will cost you $142,000 and cover 250 miles.

Under the skin, the Model X is identical to the Model S. Same 90 kilowatt-hour lithium ion battery. Same drive motors (259 horsepower at the front, 503 at the rear). Same software controlling it all. And the vehicles share the same (semi) autonomous capabilities.

The two vehicles both “quick charge” at one of Tesla’s stations in 30 minutes. They are designed to be updated in tandem, so any software updates or performance upgrades will apply to both the S and the X. And they will roll down the same assembly line at Tesla’s sprawling factory in Fremont. The company plans to ramp up production, immediately, but wouldn’t say how many might be built by the end of the year.

Of all the things that, at first glance, make the X so remarkable, the most impressive thing about it is the overall impression it imparts. It’s a practical car—Musk has five young children, and clearly considers the demands of hauling them all when designing vehicles—but it’s not a minivan or station wagon that embarrasses parents and kids alike.

Tesla has made the family car cool.

COMMENTARY:

Technical Specifications

If you go to the Model X page on the Tesla website, you will find detailed technical specifications for the car. Apparently a lot of the technology writers missed this, but I didn't. Here are the technical specifications.

Click Image To Enlarge

Two Different Models

The Model X comes in two different models the faster, sportier all-wheel drive P90D which can burn rubber at 3.8 seconds in 0-60 and comes equipped with a 259 hp front motor and a 503 hp rear motor. The 90D can do 4.8 seconds in 0-60 and comes equipped with a 259 hp front motor and a 259 hp real motor.

Price

The Model X has a price tag as shocking (to your wallet) as those doors: The Signature Model X (probably the P90D model) that Elon Musk introduced, is loaded with extra features, required a $40,000 deposit and comes with a $132,000 price tag, plus delivery and other fees. It is assumed that the 90D model will be priced slightly less. Tesla has yet to announce what financing options will come along with its new ride.

That’s a lot of money—nearly twice the cost of the base Model S sedan—and considerably more expensive than the comparable-in-size Porsche Cayenne S E-Hybrid, which costs $77,200.

07/06/2015

Solar Impulse 2 has successfully landed in Hawaii after completing its audacious five-day journey across the Pacific Ocean.

The mission, which has been dogged by recent delays, touched down safely at Kalaeloa Airport just before 5pm BST (6am local time) with André Borschberg in the cockpit.

He had endured more than 100 hours alone in the plane with minimal sleep during the flight - smashing the record for the longest solo flight in aviation history.

Click Image To Enlarge

Coming in for a landing, Solar Impulse 2, powered by the sun's rays and piloted by Andre Borschberg, approaches Kalaeloa Airport near Honolulu after a 120-hour voyage from Nagoya, Japan.

Click Image To Enlarge

Swiss pilot André Borschberg has successfully landed in Hawaii (pictured). He spent more than 100 hours alone in the single-seater plane, smashing the record for the longest solo flight in aviation history. The journey from Nagoya, Japan had been severely delayed.

Click Image To Enlarge

Solar Impulse 2 began its multi-leg 22,000-mile (35,400km) round-the-world trip on 9 March this year, taking off from Abu Dhabi and landing safely in Oman 12 hours and 250 miles (400km) later after its first leg. Shown here is the path it has taken around the world so far, and its planned upcoming route.

The landing brings to an end the first of two five-day flights made by the plane as it attempts to circumnavigate the world powered by nothing other than the sun.

The next lengthy five-day stint - over the Atlantic - will be flown by Swiss co-pilot Betrand Piccard.

Solar Impulse tweeted, after the successful landing:

Click Image To Enlarge

Next up will be a four-day flight to Phoenix, Arizona, followed by a crossing of the US, the trip across the Atlantic, a journey over Europe or Africa and finally a return to Abu Dhabi, where the mission began on 9 March 2015.

Mr Borschberg left Nagoya, Japan at 7.23pm BST last Sunday (3.03 am local time on Monday) after a month of delays.

The plane had originally been intended to fly straight from China to Hawaii, but worsening weather on the way meant Mr Borschberg had to abort and land in Japan.

Bad weather had also kept the plane grounded in China for several weeks longer than intended.

Mr Piccard told MailOnline previously that the crossing of the Atlantic needed to be completed before 6 August, or there would not be enough light for the flight to occur.

If it cannot be completed by then, the journey will have to be postponed until spring next year.

This was the second attempt at crossing the Pacific after the the first, a month ago, had to be aborted due to bad weather. The map above shows the actual route taken by the solar-powered aircraft as it flew to Hawaii in yellow and the planned route as a dotted white line.

Click Image To Enlarge

Before landing in Hawaii, Mr Borschberg (pictured) had to deal with a minor battery problem, and also had to fly the plane over a sizeable weather front.

Click Image To Enlarge

Pictured on the right of the image above, Prince Albert of Monaco applauds the safe landing of the plane at the Mission Control Centre.

Click Image To Enlarge

The plane is pictured here above Hawaii about an hour before the successful landing. Next up will be a four-day flight to Phoenix, Arizona, followed by a crossing of the US, the trip across the Atlantic, a journey over Europe or Africa and finally a return to Abu Dhabi, where the mission began on 9 March 2015.

Click Image To Enlarge

Swiss co-pilot Bertrand Piccard, pictured here, stayed in constant contact with Mr Borschberg from the control centre in Monaco throughout the flight.

Click Image To Enlarge

Mr Borschberg left Nagoya, Japan (pictured) at 7.23pm BST last Sunday (3.03am local time on Monday) on the five-day trek across the Pacific Ocean.

The plane, covered in 17,000 photovoltaic solar cells, has a top speed of just 50mph (80km/h), and can support only one pilot at a time.

For this reason, the pilots are taking alternating turns to fly legs between countries.

The goal of the project is also to show the possibilities of renewable energy such as solar power.

Bertrand Piccard said on Twitter.

"This flight to Hawaii is not only an aviation historic first, but also a historic first for energy and cleantechs."

The journey across the Pacific broke the previous record for the longest solo flight by two days.

This had previously been 76 hours, set by American Steve Fossett in 2006, when he circumnavigated the world in a jet, travelling 26,389 miles (42,468km).

Mr. Piccard said.

"Can you imagine that a solar powered airplane without fuel can now fly longer than a jet plane, This is a clear message that clean technologies can achieve impossible goals."

Click Image To Enlarge

Use the following interactive tool to explore various features of the plane.

Before landing in Hawaii, Mr Borschberg had to deal with a minor battery problem, and also had to fly the plane over a sizeable weather front.

Mr. Borschberg said from his cockpit, where he also tweets regularly.

"The first 24 hours were very technical, but the second day was really getting me into the mission. It took me a while to create a relationship of trust with the airplane, which allows me to rest and eventually sleep by periods of 20 minutes with the autopilot."

The short periods of rest, known as catnaps, are all Mr Borschberg was afforded.

He added.

"The experience of flight is so intense that I can only focus on the present moment and discover how to deal with my own energy and mindset,"

After landing, Mr Piccard is to be tasked with the next leg, the four-day crossing to Phoenix, Arizona.

Click Image To Enlarge

Swiss pilot André Borschberg (shown in the cockpit of Solar Impulse 2) was in the air for more than 100 hours. This is a new record for the longest solo flight in aviation history.

COMMENTARY: In 1986, Dick Rutan and Jeana Yeager completed the first nonstop, non-refueled flight around the world in 9 days, 3 minutes and 44 seconds aboard Voyager. I thought that flight was pretty exciting, but Rutan and Yeager took turns piloting the Burt Rutan-designed, single-purpose Voyager plane while the other slept.

The planned round-the-world flight of the Solar Inpulse 2 has been a record breaking and historic mission that if completed successfully, will demonstrate what solar power technology can accomplish. The Solar Inpulse is just about halfway through its journey to circumnavigate the globe. Let's hope the pilots can do it.

06/28/2015

Several green energy startups have attempted to harness tidal power from ocean waves to generate clean electricity and the latest entrant to try to harness electricity from 100 billion tons of water per day in the Bay of Fundyis Aquamarine Power. Aquamarine Power, based in Scotland, which has based its wave power designs on the oyster, has installed the equivalent of 64 GW wavepower technology and is achieving great results as evidenced by the large number of published and peer-reviewed papers on the subject.

How the Aquamarine Wave Power System Works

The Aquamarine Power Oyster system creates a pumping system using huge “paddles” or “shells” that swing back and forth in the waves and pump water to onshore turbines that spin and produce electricity (see video below).

According to Aquamarine’s team of engineers, coming up with an efficient technology involves a combination of finding optimum sites to install the technology and refining the design through an endless series of testing periods. With each new installation and each new upgrade, Aquamarine’s wave power system is producing better and better results.

An illustration showing how the Aquamarine Oyster Wave Energy Convertor pumps water to its offshore power generator (Click Image To Enlarge)

The reason for harnessing wave power isn’t hard to understand as the world is mostly filled with oceans. The need for sustainable energy resources makes wave power, using nearshore waves to convert wave energy to drive hydroelectric turbines, a thing of beauty.

COMMENTARY: Aquamarine Power got its start in 2001 when Professor Trevor Whittaker's research and development team at Queen's University, Belfast began to research flap-type wave power devices with a view to reducing the cost of energy. The R&D team's research ultimately led to the development of the Oyster wave energy device.

The innovative design of the Oyster wave energy converter attracted the interest of Allan Thomson, the retired founder of WaveGen, the UK's first ever wave power company. Allan went on to co-fund further R&D into the Oyster wave power device. In 2005, Allan set up Aquamarine Power to bring Oyster wave power technology to the commercial market.

Securing investment

In 2007, Aquamarine Power secured an investment of £6.3 million from major utility SSE (Scottish and Southern Energy) plus further investment of £1.5 million from venture capitalist Sigma Capital Group. This gave the company the financial backing and additional industry expertise it needed to progress their Oyster wave energy technology from scale model wave tank testing to full-scale sea trials.

In 2008 Aquamarine Power completed the fabrication of our first full-scale prototype Oyster wave energy converter and in 2009 it installed Oyster 1 at the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) in Orkney when it began producing power to the grid for the first time.

Continual progress

The following year, in November 2010, Aquamarine Power welcomed ABB, one of the world's largest power and automation companies, as a major shareholder in the business.

In 2011 the company installed its next-generation Oyster 800 wave energy device at EMEC. This device is undergoing operational testing and is producing electrical power.

Oyster 800 has now demonstrated at EMEC for over three years - including surviving some of the largest stroms this decade. The company's team of engineers and researchers are already developing the next versions of its Oyster devices, while its commercial team is progressing with a portfolio of development sites where it can install and operate future Oyster wave farms.

05/18/2015

As cities continue to grow at a dizzying rate, commuters are constantly battling ever-increasing congestion on the roads and a lack of parking, just to get to work.

But now a team of German engineers have come up with an ingenious solution — a “flexible” electric vehicle capable of shrinking, driving sideways (think like a crab) and turning on a dime.

The EO Smart Connecting Car 2 is an innovative design from DFKI Robotics Innovation Center, based in Bremen, Germany, where a team of software developers and designers, as well as electronics and construction engineers, have been refining the smart micro car project for the last three years.

First announced in 2012, the team have moved onto their second iteration of the vehicle. It drives like a traditional car but because each wheel is powered by its own motor, it also has the capability of driving sideways, allowing it to slide into tight spaces in urban areas where parking is limited, explains Timo Birnschein, project manager for the vehicle.

The prototype has a top speed of 65 km/h (or 40mph) and can travel 50 to 70 kilometers (30 to 44 miles) on a single four-hour full charge of the battery. But it’s the two-seater’s ability to shrink to around 1.5 meters in length that has the team excited about its uses in future cities, says Birnschien.

He says.

“It is able to reduce it’s own size by about 80cm, which makes it almost as small as a bike in length. And with this kind of feature you can go into very tiny parking spaces. You are still able to turn on the spot, you are still able to drive sideways and you are still able to connect to charging stations, for example.”

Click Image To Enlarge

EO2 smart car

Looking like part “Transformer” and part DeLorean out of “Back to the Future,” the car reduces its size by partly folding itself. It shifts the rear axle to the front and slides on a set of rails which raises the interior upwards, while still remaining comfortable for the passenger.

Touted as a “micro car for a megacity,” the team are working hard to make their vehicle roadworthy and envision it as a communal public resource, similar to existing urban car-sharing schemes. The idea is that when you need a car, you could head to your nearest docking station and select the vehicle that’s charged enough to drive the distance you need. It would then detach itself and you would be on your way.

Birnschein says.

“[It] is very comparable feature-wise to the first prototype. The second version is much more reliable and almost road-legal. It’s not really, but it’s almost there and we are trying to bring this car to the road — but it’s a big hassle to be honest because we have so many new technologies in the car that the technical advisory guys are skeptical.”

Click Image To Enlarge

The team have invited several manufacturers to test drive the vehicle, with positive response, but the enthusiasm ends there. He said:

“The problem is for most car manufacturers, they are not really interested if they didn’t invent it themselves. They may buy from Bosch or Siemens or whatever, technology parts like ESP and other things, but not complete systems.”

But his team remain undeterred as they continue working on autonomous features like auto pilot and self parking. Meanwhile Birnschein likens the situation to the rise in smartphones over the last decade — from non-existence to oversaturation.

He says.

“It will be the same with computer power and autonomy. In the next 10 years we will most likely see autonomous cars from big car manufacturers — Mercedes S class will have autonomous functions within three or four years. Some of other manufacturers like GM announced they will have semi-autonomous cars by 2020. And many other car manufacturers are already working on this type of technology."

And he adds.

“They are driving all the time on the autobahn with autonomous vehicles. I believe it will be coming — it will be there within the next decade.”

The EO2 car that is extremely flexible, can change shapes, and adjusts to the current traffic conditions – that is the EO2 smart connecting car, developed by engineers of the Robotics Innovation Center at DFKI Bremen. It is the car that in the not too distant future will drive itself. This prototype is part of the “New Mobility in Rural Areas” project which is investigating the innovative technologies of electromobility.

Flexible chassis enables connection to “road trains”

A changing morphology is quite unique: The driver's compartment of the EO smart connecting car is raised when the chassis is telescoped. This is also possible while driving. In the process, the car “grows” from approx. 1.6 to 2.1 meters in height and “shrinks” about half a meter to a length of less than two meters. The space savings is designed to facilitate a mechanical connection to other e-cars in a kind of chain, a so called “road train.” The contracted form makes the road trains shorter and easier to maneuver. This means greater economy of scale when transporting objects over the same route. Data and energy are transmitted to the other vehicles and the “train” is uniformly controlled, which saves fuel and improves the range. Optional components such as loading ramps and luggage racks can be attached without any problems.

The EO smart connecting car is an intelligent e-auto that can change its form to adjust to individual mobility requirements (Click Image To Enlarge)

Wheels that turn 90 degrees Spatially distributed drives let the EO smart connecting car flexibly navigate narrow spaces such as those encountered in the inner cities or parking garages. Specially designed axles allow each of the four wheels to turn 90 degrees – great for sideways parking into a tight spot. Obstacles are easy to negotiate with this lightweight (700 kg) vehicle, which can turn on a dime, move diagonally, or raise each wheel separately. The top speed is currently about 55 km/h.

Autonomous parking, docking, and charging

The development aim is to achieve a car that drives autonomously. This includes, for example, automatic parking and docking to the charging stations. Sensors in and on the car can receive traffic information and communicate with other users on the road. The development philosophy is similar to that used for robots: The e-car is equipped with the appropriate sensors and computing capacity needed to gather precise information about its surroundings and to enable it to navigate successfully. In consideration of the current traffic situation, the remaining battery capacity, and an optimized energy consumption, routes are calculated – and traffic jams are avoided.

05/14/2015

Tesla CEO Elon Musk unveils the Tesla Powerwall Battery before the press on May 1 (Click To View Video)

Even Elon Musk's SolarCity, the biggest supplier in the U.S., isn't ready to install Tesla's home battery for daily users

On May 1, 2015, Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk introduced a new family of batteriesdesigned to stretch the solar-power revolution into its next phase. There's just one problem: Tesla's new battery doesn't work well with rooftop solar—at least not yet. Even Solar City, the supplier led by Musk, isn't ready to offer Tesla's battery for daily use. The Daily Conversation explains why Tesla's Powerwall Battery is so amazing.

The new Tesla Powerwall home batteries come in two sizes—seven and 10 kilowatt hours (kWh)—but the differences extend beyond capacity to the chemistry of the batteries. The 7kWh version is made for daily use, while its larger counterpart is only intended to be used as occasional backup when the electricity goes out. The bigger Tesla battery isn't designed to go through more than about 50 charging cycles a year, according to SolarCity spokesman Jonathan Bass.

Here’s where things get interesting. SolarCity, with Musk as its chairman, has decided not to install the 7kWh Powerwall that’s optimized for daily use. Bass said that battery "doesn't really make financial sense" because of regulations that allow most U.S. solar customers to sell extra electricity back to the grid.

For customers of SolarCity, the biggest U.S. rooftop installer, the lack of a 7kWh option means that installing a Tesla battery to extend solar power after sunset won't be possible. Want to use Tesla batteries to move completely off the grid? You'll just to have to wait.Bass said in an e-mail.

“Our residential offering is battery backup,”

Musk said in a quarterly earnings call on Tuesday said that demand for the batteries has been "crazy off the hook," with 38,000 reservations for the Powerwall. While storing residential power with the Powerwall is still more expensive than grid power, he said, "that doesn't mean people won't buy it." Demand for the new batteries, including those for businesses and utilities, has been so strong that the company may need to considerably expand its $5 billion battery factory that's under construction in Nevada.

Tesla's Gigafactory, now in the process of construction in the State of Nevada, when completed in 2016, will produce Tesla Powerwall Batteries (Click Image To Enlarge)

The Economic Case for Tesla's New Battery Gets Worse

SolarCity is only offering the bigger Powerwall to customers buying new rooftop solar systems. Customers can prepay $5,000, everything included, to add a nine-year battery lease to their system or buy the Tesla battery outright outright for $7,140. The 10 kilowatt-hour backup battery is priced competitively, as far as batteries go, selling at half the price of some competing products.

But if its sole purpose is to provide backup power to a home, the juice it offers is but a sip. The model puts out just 2 kilowatts of continuous power, which could be pretty much maxed out by a single vacuum cleaner, hair drier, microwave oven or a clothes iron. The battery isn’t powerful enough to operate a pair of space heaters; an entire home facing a winter power outage would need much more. In sunnier climes, meanwhile, it provides just enough energy to run one or two small window A/C units.

For more demanding applications, Tesla made its Powerwall batteries so they can be attractively stacked, side-by-side. It looks like this:

Click Image To Enlarge

But SolarCity doesn’t offer a discount for multiple batteries. To provide the same 16 kilowatts of continuous power as this $3,700 Generac generator from Home Depot, a homeowner would need eight stacked Tesla batteries at a cost of $45,000 for a nine-year lease. Brian Warshay, an energy-smart-technologies analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance says.

"It's a luxury good—really cool to have—but I don't see an economic argument."

Yes, Tesla's Powerwall is cool technology with massive disruptive potential. As battery costs continue to fall and electricity regulations continue to evolve in the U.S., it's going to make ever more sense to own a home battery. SolarCity said in its earnings call on Monday that it plans to offer an off-grid package next year in Hawaii, where electricity prices are almost triple the U.S. average.

And the home-battery system is just one offering in the new lineup of Tesla batteries. The company is also doing business with big companies like Wal-Mart, Amazon and even with electric utilities like Southern California Electric and Texas-based OnCor. The economic argument for the commercial systems is straightforward in states with the right incentives, including battery subsidies and expensive electricity charges during peak hours. Tesla now has a clear pricing advantage against its battery competitors.

But the Powerwall product that has captured the public's imagination has a long way to go before it makes sense for most people. Even in Germany, where solar power is abundant and electricity prices are high, the economics of an average home with rooftop solar "are not significantly enhanced by including the Tesla battery," according to an analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

That won't stop homeowners from buying Tesla's new batteries. Germans are already buying storage systems by the thousands at significantly higher prices. In the U.S., the product's launch prompted a record day of inquiries from prospective new customers, according to SolarCity's Bass. He said.

"There's a tremendous amount of interest in backup power that's odorless, not noisy and completely clean."

Tesla is probably making very little profit on the home batteries at this point and might even be selling them at a loss, according to research by BNEF. Both Tesla and SolarCity are just getting started, trying to get some traction before Tesla's massive $5 billion battery factory begins production next year. That's when the battery market really gets interesting.

COMMENTARY: This is a great example of unveiling a new product, hyping that product to the high heavens, then taking orders for that product, before the product is ready for primetime.

Solar City's Jonathan Bass, the leading solar panel installer in the US, where Elon Musk is the Chairman, says Powerwall Battery "doesn't really make financial sense." This is one of the reasons, Solar City does not plan on selling the 7kWh version, but only the 10kWh battery.

Solar City says that homeowner's will need a bank of 10kWh batteries to provide adequate backup power. Instead 0f the $5,000 price tag for one Powerwall bundled with their solar panels, the true cost may be closer to $45,000 for a bank of several 10kWh batteries. Talk about sticker shock. These batteries may exceed the cost of the solar panels when all is said and done, and we still don't know if Solar City will charge for their installation.

During Tesla's earnings call with analysts on May 6, Elon Musk said that the company had already received more than 35,000 reservatons for the Powerwall battery ($3,000 each), and 2,800 reservatons for the Powerpack ($25,000) from businesses. The Powerpack can hold ten 10kWh batteries capable of storing 100kWh of electricity.

Tesla has yet to produce a profit since it began operations four years ago. For the year ending 2014, Tesla generated $3.2 billion in revenues, but lost $294 million. In the first quarter 2015, Tesla reported revenues of $1.1 billion, but lost $154 million. By Elon Musk's own account, the company will not generate a profit until 2020.

Losing money is not unusual for startups during their early years, as they work towards building a customer base. Tesla is spending an estimated $5 billion for the new Tesla Gigaplant which is scheduled to be completed in 2016. The Powerwall battery has been described as a "luxury" item by Forbes energy analyst. The same thing can be said about the Tesla Model S all-electric sedan. With the announcement of the Powerwall battery, Elon Musk is taking a huge risk because of the aforementioned sticker shock, possible delays in production, possibility of reliability issues with the Powerwall battery, low margins (around 20% says Musk) and high initial costs to the homeowner, and no payback in sight.

Keep in mind that Tesla does not have solid orders, but "reservations," and without any deposits. Reservations can be cancelled at a minutes notice, especially if there are production problems or issues with Powerwall battery reliability. Tesla is still taking reservations, and they offer delivery beginning summer 2015, early 2016, mid 2016, late 2016 and early 2017. I could be wrong, but I doubt they will be able to meet deliveries for 2015.

Never under estimate Elon Musk. Tesla promised customers it would make deliveries of the Tesla Roadster (its first all-electric vehicle) in mid-2007, but it ran into production delays and a management reorganization. The first 100 Roadster were not delivered until early 2008 and it took until the fourth quarter 2012 to finish producing the 2,400+ roadsters ordered by customers. In spite of these delays, few customer cancelled their orders, although their deposits were fully refundable.

05/03/2015

Analysts led off the Plenary Session on each day of Strategies in Light, reports MAURY WRIGHT, with growth projections for both packaged LEDs and lighting products slightly lowered relative to the 2014 presentations.

The Strategies in Light (SIL) 2015 conference, held Feb. 24–26 in Las Vegas, NV, featured Plenary Sessions anchored by Strategies Unlimited market-research presentations on each of the two main-conference days. Strategies Unlimited Senior analyst Stephanie Pruitt reported that packaged LED revenue hit $15.4B (billion) in 2014 and projected growth to $22.1B in 2019.Philip Smallwood, co-chair of SIL and director of research at Strategies Unlimited, reported that LEDs penetrated 5% of the lamps market in 2014 and projected 52% penetration by 2022 based on units shipped. Smallwood reported LED penetration in luminaires at 33% in 2014 and projected 69% penetration by 2022.

Generally, the market projections were positive, but growth rates in terms of revenue were slightly down from the 2014 data (http://bit.ly/10zl855). We will discuss the new data in detail including reasons for changes that range from packaged LED prices dropping faster than expected to new methods of modeling the lighting market that have been instigated by Smallwood in the research program.

Packaged LEDs

The packaged LED presentation is directly comparable to the data presented last year as the methodology remained consistent in the component area. Still, there is one caveat. Pruitt presented preliminary data. The actual data will not be finalized until April when the report is due for sale (after this article was written). So beware of some changes, although we’d expect them to be minor.

Pruitt took the stage on day two of SIL (Fig. 1) and compared data in the most recent years. In 2014, Strategies Unlimited projected a 13% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for LED revenue through 2018. Pruitt said the new data suggests an 8% CAGR through 2019. The lower growth, however, is not in any way indicative of the research team expecting fewer LEDs to be sold. But LED component prices are eroding faster than expected. Moreover, parts of the LED forecast are driven by research on the lighting market, and Pruitt said the new forecast is "more conservative than last year due to lighting research" — in part the new models mentioned earlier.

Indeed, we can already see slower growth in revenue numbers reported for 2014. Pruitt said LED revenue grew from $14.5B in 2013 to $15.4B in 2014. That’s far lower than the 13% projection from last year. In fact, the 6% growth from 2013 even lags behind the new projection going out to 2019.

But before we delve into more details, let’s discuss the methodology of the packaged LED research. As with previous years, the scope includes all packaged LEDs but not bare LED die or chips. It certainly does include package-light LEDs such as products based on chip-scale packages (CSPs). We covered the CSP trend in our report from the LightBuilding event in Frankfurt last year (http://bit.ly/1mTY7Br), and there is much more in our conference keynote coverage in this issue (see p. 43).

The research is focused on revenue and not number of LEDs shipped or sold. The report covers products ranging from very-low-cost, low- and mid-power LEDs to the high-power LEDs that have been most prominently used in lighting until recently when mid-power LEDs entered that space. The scope also includes super-high-power LEDs, primarily chip-on-board (COB) products. Strategies Unlimited now also publishes dedicated COB LED research (http://bit.ly/1IgdBre).

The segmentation of the packaged LED market also remains largely consistent with prior years. The 0.5W dividing line between the mid- and high-power segments remains. But that line may create ambiguity in some of the data where applications are dissected relative to the types of LEDs used. Many LEDs that look like traditional mid-power devices in plastic packages with no secondary optics can be driven at levels of 1W and higher today.

FIG. 2. The packaged LED market grew by $800M from 2013 to 2014 with lighting applications leading the charge.

Application segments

The projected 8% CAGR through 2019 will lead to a packaged LED segment that totals $22.1B. Let’s look at the applications that will drive such growth and the nearand long-term prospects and trends for each. The primary application segments include:

Displays/backlights

Mobile

Signs

Automotive

Lighting

Fig. 2 depicts the segments and the recent growth or decline in each segment from 2013 to 2014. As you might expect, lighting will remain the largest growth segment for the foreseeable future. Two years ago, Strategies Unlimited reported that general lighting had become the largest consumer of LEDs by revenue (http://bit.ly/1jD9DNa). Previously, the display-backlight sector had consumed more LEDs by revenue. Still, all of the applications listed above consume copious amounts of packaged LEDs.

FIG. 3. The display-backlight market for LEDs is in decline but is still significant.

Display backlights

Indeed, the display-backlight market for TVs and computer monitors remains robust and likely consumes more individual LED components that any other application. But the LEDs utilized are generally low- or mid-power LEDs and are among the most-commoditized products in the packaged LED space.

FIG. 4. LED revenue related to mobile devices is declining with falling LED prices.

In terms of revenue, the display sector is already in decline from $2.6B in 2014, as detailed in Fig. 3, with a -5% CAGR projected through 2019. The display sector will not suffer from the same type of saturation as the lighting sector that we will discuss later. Now the backlight segment is fully saturated, but consumers continue to buy new and better TVs or monitors. Still, LEDs used in displays will continue to fall in price. At the same time LEDs get brighter, resulting in fewer LEDs being required per display in some cases.

Pruitt noted, however, that technology innovation in the TV space could significantly impact the projection. Specifically, a larger-than-expected transition to 4k-pixel TVs, sometimes called ultrahigh-definition TVs (UHDTV), could result in more LEDs being sold into the application. Such higher-end TVs would almost assuredly rely on localdimming implementations where individual LEDs light a smaller area of the overall screen to provide optimum contrast ratio. Conversely, were an OLED manufacturer to solve the manufacturing issues with large screens, allowing that technology to drop in price, fewer LEDs might be sold into backlighting.

FIG. 5. The interior sub-segment of LED usage in automotive is saturated, but great growth potential awaits on the exterior.

Mobile devices

Moving to LED revenue in mobile devices, we find yet another application in decline. Fig. 4 depicts the details of the -5% CAGR projected by Pruitt through 2019. Still, the raw numbers are impressive. Mobile devices consumed $2.8B worth of LEDs in 2014 and the projection calls for around $2.1B in 2019.

The reasons for the decline in mobile are in part similar to the decline in displays, but OLED technology plays a larger role. The mobile market is nearly saturated, but the upgrade cycle continues to drive the sale of new devices. However, price erosion is heavy in the LEDs used in mobile devices for backlighting or lighting the keypad.

Moreover, OLED technology is already being used broadly by vendors such as Samsung in smartphones. LED revenue specifically for the phone market will go from $1.3B in 2014 to less than $1B in 2019. Declines in tablets and other mobile computing devices will be shallower.

Last year, we reported that expanded camera functionality in mobile devices was driving the need for more and higher-quality LEDs for both forward- and rear-facing camera-f lash functionality. Indeed, we covered that technology trend in our report on the conference sessions at SIL 2014 (http://bit.ly/1kXzh1e). Pruitt did not address the flash sub-segment in her SIL presentation, but that data will likely be included in the final LED market report due in April.

Pruitt also suggested that as with the display market, a transition to higher-resolution screens in mobile devices could positively impact the revenue for LEDs in the mobile segment. There will be some level of penetration of UHDTV technology even in the smaller devices as screen technology continues to improve.

FIG. 6. Exterior applications, especially in headlamps, will drive the growth of LED revenue in automotive.

Automotive and signage

Moving to areas of growth, automotive is probably the packaged-LED application with the greatest growth potential outside of general lighting. As Fig. 2 indicates, the sector experienced 10% growth between 2013 and 2014. Moreover, Pruitt projects 10% CAGR through 2019 as depicted in Fig. 5, with revenue going from $1.8B in 2014 to $2.9B in 2019.

FIG. 7. Lighting, and specifically general illumination, holds the greatest revenue potential for packaged LEDs. In 2014, general illumination accounted for 75% of the lighting market.

The automotive application includes both exterior and interior lighting. The dashboard sub-segment of interior automotive lighting is fully saturated. We will see more in-cabin use of LEDs for ambience including color-tunable lighting products. We covered an Osram Opto Semiconductors product designed for just such applications more than a year ago (http://bit.ly/1BJr2w0). But the LEDs used in automotive interiors will mostly be commodity products and falling component prices will keep interior revenue relatively flat.

The exterior automotive application, however, still has a lot of room to grow with penetration remaining relatively low in head-lamps. Moreover, the value proposition is twofold. Automakers will adopt LEDs for headlamps in mainstream cars to leverage the low power and long life inherent in LEDs. High-end vehicles will carry LED headlamps with functionality such as steered beams that can’t be realized with legacy sources.

Fig. 6 shows that LED revenue is projected to grow by 15% through 2019 in the exterior sub-segment with LED revenue in just that sub-segment exceeding $2B by 2019. The biggest growth will come in headlamps with that specific application consuming nearly $1B by 2019. Stop-and tail-light revenue will be the other high-growth area as automobile manufacturers add functionality in that application.

Signage is yet another LED application that is projected to grow. Pruitt reported that LED revenue in the application totaled $1.7B in 2014. Projection of an 11% CAGR will take the market to $2.9B in 2019.

FIG. 8. The Strategies Unlimited forecast states that 86% of the lighting market will be general illumination in 2019, and replacement lamps are expected to be the top consumer of LEDs by a wide margin.

General illumination

Lighting — specifically general illumination — however, will provide the real lift in LED revenue for the next five years. LED revenue in the lighting application totaled $5.3B in 2014 with 75% of that total dedicated to general illumination (Fig. 7). Retrofit lamps account for nearly half of the 2014 LED revenue in lighting. Pruitt projects a 14% CAGR through 2019, consuming more than $10B in LEDs for lighting.

Fig. 8 provides more details on the projection with general illumination accounting for 86% of the LED revenue by 2019. At the end of the projection, LED revenue for replacement lamps will grow to $6.6B with that application remaining well over half of the lighting consumption base. The other or non-general-illumination segment is the next largest in aggregate at $1.5B in 2019. That category, however, comprises a wide variety of small subsegments including entertainment, architectural, retail display, consumer portable, safety and security, off-grid, and strip and string lighting. Outdoor is the second largest general-illumination sub-segment today and in 2019 growing to consume $815M (million) in LEDs.

FIG. 9. The high-power LED segment will decline as a percentage of the total revenues of all LED classes.

LED types in lighting

Pruitt dug deeper into the LED market data relative to lighting applications. For example, Fig. 9 breaks down the total lighting application by types of LEDs used through the five-year forecast. The details rely on the aforementioned categorization of LEDs by power rating.

At first glance, the data is surprising. We’ve been hearing for several years about the rise of mid-power LEDs in a greater number of lighting applications. But the forecast projects that the mid-power share remains near-constant as a percentage of the total market. Still, the escalating overall market will take mid-power revenue from $1B in 2014 to $1.8B in 2019. But why doesn’t mid-power represent a bigger share percentage-wise? The answer is that many LEDs that are based on typical mid-power technology platforms operate well in excess of 0.5W today and are actually captured in the high-power segment.

FIG. 10. All classes of power LEDs will see growth in replacement lamps.

Despite the inclusion of some super-charged mid-power LEDs in the high-power category, that high-power segment will decline as a percentage of the total, as you can see in the chart. The super-high-power category composed primarily of COB LEDs will enjoy the biggest gains percentage-wise. That gain is due to a couple of primary factors. Price erosion is much lower in both high- and super-high-power LEDs relative to low- and mid-power LEDs. And COBs are much simpler for many lighting manufacturers to work with given that the LEDs have a single electrical interface and can be more simply mounted in a design. Moreover, optics manufacturers have made great progress in lenses for the relatively-larger COB LEDs, as was evident in a recent feature article on optics (http://bit.ly/1CDtat3).

FIG. 11. Mid-power LEDs will do especially well in commercial luminaires and specifically the troffer application.

In her SIL presentation, Pruitt also characterized types of LEDs used in specific applications, and a couple are of particular interest. Fig. 10 depicts the LED segments relative to replacement lamps, including A-lamps, directional lamps, and tubes. Arguably, replacement lamps are the most cost-sensitive portion of the general illumination market. Yet in terms of percentage of the LED market, high-power LEDs will remain predominant in the application. Moreover, COB revenue will grow at a higher rate than either the commodity mid- or low-power LEDs.

FIG. 12. LED revenue will continue to ramp in outdoor applications with the most growth coming in chip-on-board (COB) LEDs.

Mid-power LEDs will make the greatest gains in the commercial sector, as documented by Fig. 11. Ceiling troffers are widely used in the commercial sector. And LED-based luminaires that are focused on the traditional rectilinear troffer form factors are a good match to mid-power LEDs. The LEDs are applied in a linear fashion with the components closely spaced for even illumination.

The outdoor segment is one where COBs will really shine, according to Pruitt’s forecast. Fig. 12 shows highpower LED usage remaining relatively flat in outdoor applications while COBs ramp considerably. We’d speculate that the improved COB optics mentioned earlier will be a driver for the success of COBs in outdoor applications. In the past, luminaires that used COB LEDs relied on reflector-based designs for beam control. The new lenses can enable far superior beam control that had been only achievable with smaller sources.

Lighting market data

Now let’s transition to an examination of market data centered on lighting products presented in the Plenary by Smallwood on day one of SIL (Fig. 13). The presentation was entitled "How big can the LED lighting market get?" Smallwood addressed both the lamps and luminaires markets.

Smallwood moved into a leadership position in the Strategies Unlimited lighting practice in late 2013. He has since revamped the approach that the firm takes to characterize the lighting market. The research has been expanded to cover lighting products based on all types of light sources — not just LED-based products. The data is segmented for form factors and applications. And Smallwood has led development of a market model that can yield regional geographical segmentation of the market. Smallwood also said the new approach will enable more accurate prediction of saturation by long-life, LED-based products and the coincident shrinking of market potential.

Starting with the lamps market, Smallwood said there are around 45B installed lamp sockets in the world with that number only growing incrementally in the coming years (Fig. 14). Today, 9B incandescent products are installed in those sockets with that number projected to fall to less than 2B by 2022. Smallwood’s projection shows that linear fluorescent and compact fluorescent (CFL) technologies will remain prevalent through 2022. Primarily, LED-based replacement lamps will replace the incandescent incumbent with some displacement of fluorescent and halogen technologies.

FIG. 14. The global installed base of lamps will remain a mix in terms of light-source technology through 2022.

Recognize, however, that there is a vast difference between the installed base and shipments of lamps throughout the forecast period; Strategies Unlimited’s new model allows the analysts to report both, and by region or globally. For example, Fig. 15 depicts the difference in the North America region specific to A-lamps. The installed base chart on the left of Fig. 15 shows a strong presence of incandescent products, whereas shipments of such products will drop precipitously as LED lamp shipments continue to rise.

FIG. 15. The installed base of incandescent A-lamps in North America will decline slowly, whereas new shipments of such products have already plummeted as LEDlamp shipments rise.

Smallwood reported that LED lamps represented 5% of the overall 2014 market globally. He projects that penetration to rise to 28% in 2018 and to 52% in 2022. Those numbers may sound low, but remember the total lamp market includes tubes, and fluorescent technology will remain a major player. Indeed, Smallwood projects that fluorescent tubes will still account for more than 20% of lamp shipments in 2022.

Ironically, Smallwood also reported a very bullish outlook for LED-based replacement tubes as he broke the data down by type of lamp. Smallwood admitted that he never believed the concept of an LED-based replacement tube to be a very good idea relative to products such as integral, LED-based luminaires. But the research indicates that the market will heavily rely on such tube products primarily because of the ease of retrofit. Smallwood projects a 29% CAGR for tube shipments through 2022, although the growth will flatten at the end of that period as sockets are saturated.

Overall saturation will be felt far more acutely. Total lamp shipments will decline by 44% through 2022. Other than the tube market, all of the other lamp types will be in decline in terms of units shipped by the end of this decade.

FIG. 16. Global lamp revenue will peak in about four years as socket saturation with long-life LED-based products takes place.

Still, the lamp market will remain sizeable in terms of revenue. Fig. 16 shows the lamp market charted by revenue and segmented by light-source technology. Revenue will peak at $21B in 2018 but still reach a hefty $16B value in 2022.

Smallwood also covered the luminaires space. And the Strategies Unlimited team has developed a far more granular model for the broad luminaires segment. The team is now segmenting the market by different types of fixtures including:

Downlights

Troffers

High bays

Suspended pendants

Tracklights

Street lights

Moreover, the new model includes the ability to sort the data by application including retail, office, hospitality, and more. The two types of segmentation can be applied individually or together. And in terms of LED-based fixtures, Strategies Unlimited is separately tracking fixtures that use LED-based replacement lamps and fixtures based on integral, LED-based designs.

In 2014, the combination of both types of LED fixtures represented less than 4% of the total luminaire market in terms of the installed base. But again installed base and shipments differ. Fig. 17 provides an excellent picture of both market size and the light-source technologies that will ship in luminaires. Luminaire revenue will only ramp from $59B in 2014 to $66B in 2022. But as mentioned at the beginning of the article, 69% of the luminaires will be LED-based in 2022

FIG. 17. The global luminaire market will grow slowly through 2022, but LED-based products will represent an increasingly large share of that revenue.

Smallwood closed his presentation with some interesting thoughts. He said,

"The lighting world has accepted that LEDs are the future,"

Still, he characterized the transition as an evolution from the filament to LED sources. He added, however, that there is a revolution afoot in addition to the changing light sources.

Smallwood said.

"The revolution is the ancillary products and technologies such as networks and controls that are coming along with LED lighting."

Smart lighting based on sensor-driven autonomous or programmatic controls is a good example. Smallwood also suggested that the revolution will deliver "lighting with a purpose." He said lighting will specifically target needs such as human well-being, productivity, security, and safety.

Smallwood asked the audience,

"Would you ever have thought Cisco would present a keynote at Strategies in Light?"

Indeed, that company did. For coverage of that keynote and other high-impact keynote speakers, see our feature article on p. 43

COMMENTARY: Convincing consumers to switch to LED lighting is an interesting proposition. On paper, it seems a no-brainer: LED lighting uses 80 percent less energy than traditional lighting, and when used with energy management tools such as automatic on/off switches and dimmers, energy consumption can be reduced about 40 percent further.

Moreover, an average LED light can last up to 22 years – as opposed to an incandescent bulb that lasts for only six months. Unlike compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFL), the corkscrew bulbs, LEDs do not contain toxic mercury. The EPA website outlines the steps necessary to clean up a broken CFL bulb safely. After reading this, consumers might want to buy a hazmat suit in preparation. All these factors add up to one great product for the environment – energy savings, landfill reduction and the elimination of toxic materials.

When summarizing all of economical and environmental advantages related to LED lighting, it seems like a rational choice to switch over immediately to LED lights. So why aren’t people rushing to retrofit their homes? What can the lighting industry do to incentivize the average person to “do the right thing” and install LED lights in their home and offices?

The introduction of traditional CFLs left a very negative impression with consumers, who did not like their odd corkscrew shape, delayed warm up time, light quality or the occasional buzzing sound they emitted. To balance against this negative image of alternative or green lighting, LED lighting manufacturers have to reassure the public that their products are easy to use, are affordable and, furthermore, delight the public with new must-have features. Here are some steps manufacturers can take to make the public embrace the evolution to LED lighting.

The transition to LEDs is, literally, as easy as changing a light bulb, provided the LED lighting is compatible with the existing lighting infrastructure in homes and buildings. First of all, the bulbs have to have a similar form factor to traditional bulbs and fit into existing light sockets. Additionally, in the United States, there are more than 150,000,000 dimmers installed – a type of switch with which LED lights traditionally have not worked well. Some early users experienced poor performance using LEDs with dimmers including reduced dimming range, flickering, turning off unexpectedly and not responding properly to on/off commands when dimmer is set at lower dimming level.

The initial purchase price of LED lights is expensive when compared to other types of bulbs. An incandescent bulb costs less than a $1, while a CFL bulb costs around $1 to $2 depending upon whether or not it can be dimmed. An average LED light to replace a 60W incandescent bulb, however, will set consumers back approximately $23. Even though it can be easily demonstrated that the $23 LED light bulb is the cheapest alternative in the long run, based on its life span and operational costs, the average person will balk at making this investment. A key factor that drives consumer acceptance of new technologies is to bring down costs to the threshold, say $10, that spurs mass adoption. LED manufacturers need to find ways to lower the price of their products.

The LED industry has to educate the public about benefits of LED lighting and especially the language or lingo of LED's.

Contrary to common belief, wattage isn't an indication of brightness, but a measurement of how much energy the bulb draws. For incandescents, there is an accepted correlation between the watts drawn and the brightness, but for LEDs, watts aren't a great predictor of how bright the bulb will be. (The point, after all, is that they draw less energy.)

For example, an LED bulb with comparable brightness to a 60W incandescent is only 8 to 12 watts. Instead of using wattage a different form of brightness measurement should be used: lumens. The lumen (lm) is the real measurement of brightness provided by a light bulb, and is the number you should look for when shopping for LEDs. For reference, here's a chart that shows the watt-lumen conversion for incandescents and LEDs.

Courtesy of an article appearing in the May 2015 issue of LED Magazine, an article dated May 8, 2012 appearing in Forbesand an article dated March 26, 2013 appearing in CNET